>>369 Consensus and verification.
Do you use your senses and reasoning to determine whether or not there has been a consensus on the validity of senses and reasoning?
I think that when so many people disagree about something so vehemently, something odd is going on, and it's probably not that seventy percent of humans on Earth are brain-damaged.
Nope, they are ‘suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.’ (Romans 1: 18-21).
Another major problem with spiritual knowledge and experiences - demonstrated by your failure, thus far, to explain the precise nature of how God has revealed himself to you
You never asked. God has revealed Himself to us through His Word, and through His creation.
You can merely present your ontological arguments, have us read the prophecies come of other people's spiritual experiences from thousands of years ago, and hope that we arrive at a similar epiphany.
Nope, I do not use ontological arguments, nor do I appeal to the spiritual experiences of others, I simply state that without God, proof of anything is impossible. Should be easy to refute, just tell us how proof of anything is possible without God.
I doubt your spiritual beliefs because, being non-transferable, there is no way for me to evaluate for myself whether they are true observations or the product of faulty senses or reasoning.
I am not appealing to my spiritual beliefs, I am simply asking you to account for proof and knowledge according to YOUR worldview.
Properly done science can always be reduced to observations
Perhaps you can give me an example of science that has been reduced to observation, and tell me how you know that its findings are valid?
When you point at morality, I see a social construct.
When you point at a social construct, I see arbitrary morality, and a worldview that says raping babies could be right.
suppose so, but that just makes my statement falsifiable, not false.
Never said it was false, I said it was invalid, or ‘without foundation,’ and therefore meaningless.
Therefore certainty is impossible unless you remove the natural world and replace it with a set of axioms - such as the bases of logic and mathematics.
Are you certain of that, if so, what axiom did you use to derive that conclusion? Also, how do you account for the laws of logic and mathematics according to your worldview?